Citation network
Ross Vs. Bernhard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 02, 1970
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 531 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Ross v. BernhardSearch
-
U.S. 531 (1970) Ross v. BernhardSearch
-
in nature, and no jury was available to try any part of it. 403 F.2d 909. It specifically disagreed with DePinto v. ProvidentSearch
-
Parson v. BedfordSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
line between actions at law dealing with legal rights and suits in equity dealing with equitable matters, Whitehead v. ShattuckSearch
-
being, was commonly entitled to sue and be sued in the usual forms of action, at least in its own State. See Paul v. VirginiaSearch
-
it suffices to say that the remedy in this country, first dealt with by this Court in Dodge v. WoolseySearch
-
arose in this Court in the context of a derivative suit for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Fleitmann v. WelsbachSearch
-
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, relying on the Federal Rules as construed and applied in Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSearch
-
U. S. 500 (195), and Dairy Queen, Inc. v. WoodSearch
-
DePinto v. ProvidentSearch
-
See Simler v. ConnerSearch
-
Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
Schoenthal v. IrvingSearch
-
Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 42(b), or legal and equitable issues may be handled in the same trial. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. ParamountSearch
-
courts that class action plaintiffs may obtain a jury trial on any legal issues they present. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. LangerSearch
-
Oskoian v. CanuelSearch
-
Syres v. OilSearch
-
Page 396 U. S. 543 whether the corporation's other claims are also properly triable to a jury. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. WoodSearch
-
Curriden v. MiddletonSearch
-
Delaware & Hudson Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
U. S. 450 (1882). Soon after Hawes v. OaklandSearch
-
See Koster v. LumbermensSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
dilemma of the stockholder seeking treble damages for the corporation became real and complete in United Copper Co. v. AmalgamatedSearch
-
dilemma, and that derivative actions for treble damages under the antitrust laws are now proper. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. ParamountSearch
-
Pictures, Inc., 202 F.2d 731 (C.A.2d Cir.1953). Cf. Ramsburg v. AmericanSearch
-
For example, in Amalgamated Copper, the Court noted that, in Quincy v. SteelSearch
-
U.S. at 244 U. S. 264 -265, n. 2. Delaware & Hudson Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
Goetz v. Manufacturers'Search
-
Isaac v. MarcusSearch
-
Morton v. MortonSearch
-
Neff v. BarberSearch
-
Robinson v. SmithSearch
-
the merged federal practice altered the procedures in derivative suits was early recognized, Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. ParamountSearch
-
below, DePinto was alone in holding that a right to a jury trial existed in derivative actions. Cf. Richland v. CrandallSearch
-
F.Supp. 274 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1966). See also Metcalf v. ShamelSearch
-
Steinway v. GriffithSearch
-
under Equity Rule 23 and the Law and Equity Act of 1915, Act of March 3, 1915, 38 Stat. 956. See Southern R. Co. v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial